With PIPA and SOPA still fresh in the minds of Americans of all stripes who aren’t fabulously wealthy conglomerates but would like to be able to use the Internet without fear of arrest, it shouldn’t come as surprise that the bad guys continue to concoct evil schemes designed to turn the Internet into the personal property of private business. The latest such effort appears to have been successful, as via Kotaku comes news of a creepy new law set to take effect this October in Japan, that could, possibly, effectively ban Youtube and sites like it from their shores.

The law in question isn’t quite as bad as SOPA and PIPA, but only in the same way skin cancer isn’t as bad as pancreatic cancer. It forbids the consumer from ripping and copying copy-protected and encoded materials like DVDs and games in any way, even for personal use (yes, even mix CDs are now illegal). Software and hardware designed to get around copy protections and other restrictions can no longer be sold. And naturally, the ‘intentional’ downloading of illegally uploaded material is a big no no (just how they know something is intentional or not isn’t clear).

So what happens if a Japanese person makes a mix for their significant other? They could, if caught, get 2 years in prison, and/or a ¥2,000,000 fine. That seems kind of extreme for not paying for an Mp3, but then, we know how important it is to ensure that the average citizen knows his or her place. Leniency is, after all, only for people who trash the economy and commit war crimes. But it gets worse. As written, the law apparently extends not to activity in Japan, but to the activity of Japanese people anywhere in the world. Which means a Japanese citizen in Britain who watches Youtube or some other proscribed service could find themselves in hot water upon returning home, assuming they’re being watched by the copyright secret police.

This law goes into effect October 1. It seems like a done deal, particularly because of the sneaky way they government passed it, but 4 months is plenty of time to fight it. If you speak Japanese or have ties to Japan, now might be the time to see what you can do to help. Remember folks, laws like this don’t just affect the countries in which they’re passed; they’re part of a coordinated, worldwide effort by giant copyright holders to finally make the Internet their private property, and we consumers nothing more than tenants, living at the pleasure of our social betters. Stand with Japan on this one, because we know they’re going to try this again in the US sooner than we think.

]]>http://www.gamefront.com/pay-attention-to-japans-creepy-sopa-style-copyright-law/feed/3Beware Of Zombie PIPA And SOPAhttp://www.gamefront.com/beware-of-zombie-pipa-and-sopa/
http://www.gamefront.com/beware-of-zombie-pipa-and-sopa/#commentsWed, 25 Jan 2012 04:35:48 +0000Ross Lincolnhttp://www.gamefront.com/?p=148123That public outcry successfully led to their collapse is no reason to become complacent. They will return.

Internet users, rejoice! After months in which it seemed that increasingly outspoken opposition fell upon apparently deaf ears, the battle against the House of Representatives’ Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its counterpart in the Senate, the Protect IP Act (PIPA), finally worked. In quick succession, the Obama administration confirmed its opposition to SOPA, the infamous January 18th blackout dominated the news and major tech players reluctantly walked back their prior expressed support for the bills. When Congress finally killed the bills last Friday, it seemed a mere formality, and served as astonishing proof that our political system isn’t as broken as we often fear.

But as good an excuse to celebrate as the death of SOPA and PIPA is, it’s time to put the champagne glass down. Like recently turned zombies, they’ll be back from the dead sooner than we think, and if the past is any indicator, they’ll be worse than before. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

First, remember that SOPA and PIPA were not the first attempts by Congress to kill the Internet. Numerous prior attempts have been made over the years; in 2010, it was a bill proposed by Patrick Leahy called Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. That bill contained several disturbing provisions, including a seriously broad definition of “infringement,” a DOJ Internet blacklist and broad DOJ power to take down websites accused of infringing, and technical requirements that would have impacted web security and even the basic architecture of the Internet. It was effectively killed when fellow Democrat Ron Wyden did what Leahy apparently could not – remembered who his actual constituents are – and basically prevented the bill from coming to a full Senate vote at the end of 2010, mostly killing it.

Leahy probably sounds familiar. And he should, because 7 months later, he reemerged as the chief sponsor for PIPA. Undeterred by concerns raised in COICA, he and the Senate Judiciary Committe doubled down, packing PIPA with even worse provisions. They were followed in October, 2011, by SOPA, which has the amazing distinction of being even worse than PIPA, despite there being 4 months’ worth of publicly expressed concerns about the Senate’s bill as the House Judiciary Committee was crafting it. If at first you don’t succeed and all that; rest assured, Congress will. Given Leahy’s apparently neverending desire to pass something like this, and the temporarily shamed bipartisan coalition of congresspeople who share that longing, similar bills are guaranteed.

It’s also important to remember that while we managed to shame them into doing the right thing, our representatives don’t really like having to respond to the public. Even after opposition to these bills began to crystalize with the unveiling of SOPA, the national legislature seemed indifferent to almost all concerns raised. SOPA and PIPA, like COICA before them, were all created with a minimum amount of public scrutiny. Almost no consultation with credible tech experts or actual Internet consumers occurred, though film, tech and music industry lobbyists were hugely involved. It was only when semi-obscure technical problems inherent in SOPA were pointed out to the House judiciary committee in late December, that the committee even considered postponing a scheduled vote. The concerns about SOPA’s nontechnical provisions didn’t even come up at the time.

In fact, things looked extremely grim almost up until the end, which is why it’s especially telling the way that the bills’ congressional supporters have reacted to the effect public opposition had on reluctant congresscritters. Harry Reid offered a terse statement confirming the decision to shutter PIPA that positively drips with contempt, referring to the massive outpouring of opposition as “recent events”. Leahy went one better, issuing a rambling, petty and petulant statement to his Senate website that called PIPA’s defeat a “victory for thieves”, promised that the “Senators who forced this move will look back and realize they made a knee-jerk reaction to a monumental problem”, and all but accused opponents of loving China and Russia more than American jobs.

Simply put, we will almost certainly have to work far harder the next time they try this.

You know when you kill the bad guy, but it turns out he was just a foil for a greater villain?

Well, SOPA may be dead, but ACTA has been lurking in the shadows this whole time, gathering strength and support for the final climactic battle — not just with the US, but with the world. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement seeks to establish international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement.

ACTA encourages service providers to collect and provide information about suspected infringers by giving them “safe harbor from certain legal threats”. Similarly, it provides for criminalization of copyright infringement on a commercial scale, granting law enforcement the powers to perform criminal investigation, arrests and pursue criminal citations or prosecution of suspects who may have infringed on copyright on a commercial scale. It also allows criminal investigations and invasive searches to be performed against individuals for whom there is no probable cause, and in that regard weakens the presumption of innocence and allows what would in the past have been considered unlawful searches.

United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea have already signed the treaty, and Poland will be doing so within the next few days. The European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland have to yet sign the treaty, but did profess their support and have until March 31, 2013 to sign.

The European Parliament allegedly has the final decision over whether the treaty will be dismissed or enacted, so don’t put down your torches and pitchforks just yet — there’s still more protesting to be done.

Also good news: the Entertainment Software Association issued a statement today withdrawing its support of the two bills. Interesting timing there. Here’s their statement.

From the beginning, ESA has been committed to the passage of balanced legislation to address the illegal theft of intellectual property found on foreign rogue sites. Although the need to address this pervasive threat to our industry’s creative investment remains, concerns have been expressed about unintended consequences stemming from the current legislative proposals. Accordingly, we call upon Congress, the Obama Administration, and stakeholders to refocus their energies on producing a solution that effectively balances both creative and technology interests. As an industry of innovators and creators, we understand the importance of both technological innovation and content protection and are committed to working with all parties to encourage a balanced solution.

]]>http://www.gamefront.com/perhaps-the-sopapipa-blackout-worked-graphic/feed/4Great News: SOPA and PIPA Postponed ‘Indefinitely’http://www.gamefront.com/sopa-and-pipa-postponed/
http://www.gamefront.com/sopa-and-pipa-postponed/#commentsFri, 20 Jan 2012 18:32:04 +0000Ross Lincolnhttp://www.gamefront.com/?p=147686I think it might be time to pop the cork on that bottle of Brut.

]]>
While it isn’t quite the same thing as ‘killed deader than a vampire on the sunlit side of the moon’, the average Internet user and the tech world can breathe a collective sigh of relief today, as news breaks that SOPA and PIPA have been postponed indefinitely. Earlier this morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed that “in light of recent events,” a scheduled vote on PIPA would be postponed. At the same time, members of the House Judiciary Committee, the body that created SOPA, put that bill on hold. Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, chief sponsor of the bill, said they will “postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution”.

While neither body will say that the bills are dead, the fact remains that the widespread website blackouts in protest of SOPA and PIPA that occurred on January 18th, and the increased public opposition prior to those protests caused a sizable number of congresspeople to flip their position on these bills. Even before Wednesday’s protests, the tide was turning. Given how effective opposition has been, it is all but guaranteed that there will be no “wider” agreement on solutions to the problem of piracy, at least in the short term. This means that for all intents and purposes, SOPA and PIPA as we know them are dead.

This should not be taken as a reason to relax however. It’s highly likely that supporters of the bills, not to mention the RIAA and MPAA, will regroup and return with either an amended version of these odious proposals, or brand new legislation that will once again seek to ruin the Internet. Still, in light of the surprise success of Wednesday’s protests, it’s safe to say those of us opposed to the bills have earned a couple of moments to celebrate. With that in mind, allow me to rub this in the MPAA and RIAA’s faces for a second:

]]>
Developer Red 5, the folks behind the currently-in-beta shooter Firefall, are not going to have anything to do with E3 this year, because the show is run by the Entertainment Software Association, and those guys support SOPA and PIPA. Not only that, though; they’re going to use the $50,000 or so that they would have spent going to E3 on other things, like a grassroots organization called the League for Gamers, which I guess would lobby like the ESA without doing things like supporting legislation that would f–k over the entire internet and gamers everywhere.

It’s a worthy cause, sure, and I like the gumption they have to just skip E3 like that. E3 is kind of a big deal, as we all know, and so skipping it is a meaningful gesture.

For more on this move, be sure to head over to Ars Technica and read their interview with Red 5′s CEO about this whole thing.

If you’re an active citizen of the internet, chances are you’ve read something about SOPA (if not, see GameFront’s complete coverage). The legislation itself might currently be in a Congressional holding pattern — a recent bit of good news — but its threat to freedom is barely diminished.

Though high-profile game developers and publishers remain conspicuouslyabsent, a diverse coalition of technology companies has banded together to declare today, Wednesday, January 18th, a “blackout.” Wikipedia will be completely dark. Google will feature an anti-SOPA message on its homepage. The complete list of participants is long and ever-growing.

This morning, as thousands of internet users adjust to a world without Wikipedia, one question rises above all others: will the Blackout work?

Viewed one way, the answer is no. If there’s one thing the entire SOPA mess proves, it’s that the current membership of the U.S. Congress has a tenuous grasp of how the modern internet works in practice. Congresspeople do not frequent independent blogs, download game mods, or laugh at lolcats. To the extent that they do use things like Twitter, they do so with a staff member as an intermediary, in order to attract potential voters.

When powerful, monied interests complain about the very real problem of piracy, it becomes easy to embrace a simple trade-off between American business and a bunch of nebulous stuff legislators neither use nor understand. Not having access to Wikipedia might represent a serious inconvenience to you (or me, researching this article), but it won’t to someone like Virginia Congressman and SOPA co-sponsor Bob Goodlatte. It is unlikely, therefore, that today’s blackout will significantly affect the opinions of the actual lawmakers working on the bill. When it comes down to it, theirs are the minds that need changing.

Still, viewed another way, the answer to the question — will the SOPA blackout work? — is an unequivocal yes. The reason is two-fold. Firstly, the blackout will have a huge effect on the issue’s overall visibility. The Bob Goodlattes of the world won’t miss Wikipedia for a day, but millions of other people will. Those among them who were not aware of SOPA and its implications will be educated in a hurry. Same goes for the millions of daily visitors to the Google homepage.

Secondly, the blackout will keep media and public attention focused on the bill, despite the best efforts of its sponsor, Texas Representative Lamar Smith. Experts agree that by cancelling a planned floor vote and deciding to spend an additional month in “markup,” Smith is hoping to ride out the storm of public outcry and pass the bill with little fanfare in February. Today’s well-publicized “internet strike” will help shore up Americans’ notoriously short attention spans.

With these two potential benefits in mind, it’s clear that the blackout is a worthwhile endeavor. On the other hand, SOPA opponents expecting a knockout blow will probably be disappointed. The only way to change a Representative’s mind is to contact one directly!

We had heard that SOPA might be dead, but it turns out it isn’t. The House Judiciary Committee issued a press release today stating plans to continue the markup on the controversial bill in February.

What this means is that Lamar Smith hopes that all the furor will die down in the meantime and allow them to move forward with the bill without all the protests and stuff. Your job, now, is to keep bitching about it. Don’t let the terrorists win. All the blackouts that will be taking place tomorrow are a good start, but we have to keep it up until this bill goes away forever or miraculously morphs into something that isn’t f–king horrible. Good luck.

So an enterprising young (maybe) redditor took it upon himself to bug the folks at EA about SOPA in an attempt to find out what their stance on it is. His email made the rounds inside the company, and he actually managed to get a response. You can read it here.

The short version is that EA has no stance on SOPA. They don’t support it, but they also aren’t going to speak out against it. Being a member of the ESA, that kind of makes them for it by default, but whatever. They’re trying to stay neutral.

I think there’s a Bible verse that seems pretty applicable to this situation. It’s Revelation 3:15-16

I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!

That’s how I feel about this. Pick a side, EA! Staying neutral is the coward’s way out. Bah

]]>http://www.gamefront.com/ea-doesnt-support-sopa-but-it-isnt-against-it-either/feed/1SOPA: Why I Can’t Defend the Game Industry Anymorehttp://www.gamefront.com/sopa-why-i-cant-defend-the-game-industry-anymore/
http://www.gamefront.com/sopa-why-i-cant-defend-the-game-industry-anymore/#commentsTue, 17 Jan 2012 20:26:33 +0000Jim Sterlinghttp://www.gamefront.com/?p=147063Redirecting my anger onto those I once stood up for

]]>(This is another edition of </RANT>, a weekly opinion piece column on GameFront. Check back every week for more. The opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not reflect those of GameFront. The featured image on this week’s post is an amazing piece by sakimichan at Deviant Art)

When I first started writing, one thing I wanted to do more than anything was to defend the videogame industry. The frustration I felt when watching games suffer ignorant criticism by mainstream media pundits often threatened to develop into a consuming inferno of throbbing rage. No moment more defined my goal as a writer than the murder of 14-year-old Stefan Pakeerah. The British teen was brutally attacked with a claw hammer by a “friend” who was reportedly “obsessed” with Rockstar’s Manhunt. This game became the focal point of a discussion that ignored driving motivations for the murder (it turned out that the incident was an attempted mugging), the wider causes of violent street crime, and the fact that Pakeerah’s own parents had bought Manhunt at one point.

Despite police concluding that Manhunt was not responsible for the attack in any way, that didn’t stop opportunists jumping on the bandwagon, to the point where some blame Manhunt for Pakeerah’s death even to this day. The parents were the driving force of the blame, but scavenging Labor politician Keith Vaz was the fuel in their engine. The self-promoting minister has continued to attack videogames and still claims Manhunt is responsible for Pakeerah’s death.

When I was hired by Destructoid in 2006, I finally felt like I had a voice. Even if I was preaching to the choir, there was a great catharsis in championing the videogame industry’s merits, as I did when the British Board of Film Classification banned Manhunt 2, when Anne Diamond wrote a slew of anti-game propaganda for the Daily Mail, and when California attempted to impose limitations on videogames that movies and books had not been subjected to, singling out interactive entertainment as something more dangerous and toxic. I did this proudly, and I did this with all the energy that my moral indignation could muster. Nowadays, however, I struggle to care. The indignation is still there, but the desire to fight in favor of the industry? That’s been eroded, possibly beyond repair.

It has become pretty clear over the course of the past two years that my desire to defend videogames is at odds with my desire to defend the rights of gamers themselves. As publishers continue to punish paying PC users with unfairly restrictive DRM measures, as the likes of THQ and EA put online passes into games to pressure retailers (who rely on secondhand sales to make any kind of profit), and as a vast majority of the game industry still remains silent on the issue of the Stop Online Piracy Act, I cannot help but feel that my past desire to “go to bat” for this industry is a little embarrassing. To defend the rights of companies that don’t care if we live or die … it’s not something I feel comfortable doing anymore.

Online passes and DRM were one thing, but the recent SOPA issue took it too far. It’s what hammered home a truth that we all know, deep down — that the game industry we so love has no feelings toward us. We are all little more than walking wallets, and that’s something we’ve been fine with for a long time. I don’t expect EA, THQ, or Ubisoft to give a rat’s ass about me, but I would have expected more than stony silence on an issue that threatened the free speech of everybody in this industry, be they developer, gamer or even publisher. Unfortunately, the Entertainment Software Association sunk lower than silence. It supported — and still supports — SOPA. A bill that, in case you haven’t heard, was written with the intention of allowing corporations supreme power over the Internet, blocking access to sites that it didn’t like without due process, and strangling revenue streams to sites containing copyrighted content. It wasn’t just about piracy, either — even sites with user-generated content could be shut down. That’s how vague the bill is, even after multiple changes and research (not to mention postponed hearings!).

The ESA, which represents a huge amount of game publishers, has proudly remained a supporter of SOPA in the face of terrible publicity, consistent blows to its credibility, and criticism from a huge number of tech experts. What truly makes it appalling, however, is the startling hypocrisy at play.

Remember, this is the same ESA that begged gamers for help during the Brown vs. EMA/ESA legal battle. The California Bill wanted to restrict the sale of games, slapping laws on videogames that other forms of entertainment were not governed by. The ruling would be a direct attack on the First Amendment rights of entertainment software, and the ESA worked that angle like a pro. It used its Video Game Voters Network to whip gamers into a defensive frenzy, and it milked the concept of free speech for every beautiful, shiny drop. I spread the word as best I could, as did many gamers, and I feel many shared my years of frustration with games being treated as dangerous scapegoats. Years of pent-up anger toward preening pundits and clueless politicians was salved when the supreme court eventually ruled that videogames were protected by free speech, that people couldn’t just waltz in and change the rules because they did not understand a new medium.

How pathetically ironic, then, that the ESA is doing to the Internet what Arnold Schwarzenegger and Leland Yee tried to do to videogames. Now it’s the ESA’s turn to play the out-of-touch, incompetent, hysteria-driven old dinosaur that is trying to legislate that which it cannot comprehend. And in the face of an appeal from the gamers that once helped it, the ESA has this to say — f*ck you. F*ck you all.

That was, as they say, the last straw. Yes, it’s obvious that the game industry doesn’t care about its consumers, but until recently, I kind of didn’t mind it. I was still happy to fight for gaming as an art form, even if Activision and Microsoft just saw it was a way to fleece as much cash out of consumers as possible. I was fine with that. But not anymore. I can’t keep doing it, because I respect myself too much. I can’t go to bat when Mass Effect is accused of distributing pornography to minors by FOX News, or when some half-baked psychologist claims Bulletstorm encourages rape. I can’t do it because the sting of knowing that I’m being exploited is just too great. That’s what it is, at its core — exploitation. Publishers know how much gamers respect videogames, rely on them to defend their artistic rights, and then betray them at a later date. As EA and Capcom continue to pull poker faces and refuse to speak out against SOPA, as the trade body representing them actively and proudly supports the thing, I can’t feel morally right about sticking up for any of the bastards. Even as some companies come out against SOPA at the eleventh hour, one feels they were were staying on the fence and letting other people do all the heavy lifting, marching in only when they were sure it was a good PR move, expecting a hero’s welcome.

The frustration I once felt when I saw games being misrepresented in the media has been replaced with a different kind of frustration. A frustration at seeing developers claim to require online passes because their million-selling, AAA title wouldn’t make a profit otherwise. A frustration at seeing publishers use DRM that they know doesn’t work, exerting greater control over paying customers while blaming everything on the pirates who have gotten away scot-free. A frustration at corporations fleecing retailers over profits of brand new games, then acting like the victim when those retailers push used sales in order to make up for it. A frustration at seeing platform holders play with our personal details like toys, and only come clean about it once the evidence is too great to deny.

The silence of games companies and the treachery of the ESA opened my eyes to everything else. It also allowed me to see the hypocrisy that infests this industry. Just think about how videogames are used as a scapegoat when someone is killed. Now think about how pirates or used sales become scapegoats when a shitty or poorly promoted game doesn’t sell enough copies. Videogames have learned well from their detractors over the years. The same propaganda and fear-mongering employed against them have been employed expertly against the perceived enemies of this business. Pay like unto like, I suppose.

That’s why, when I see Electronic Arts crying over free speech while defending the use of real-life helicopters in Battlefield 3, I am not compelled to care. EA doesn’t care about free speech. Nor did the ESA. To the games industry, free speech is not a basic right, but just another loophole to be exploited. It’s just something that disingenuous fake-grassroots organizations like the Video Game Voters Network can utilize to trick gamers into defending corporations that don’t give the first fuck about them. It’s just another tool in the box. I can’t keep defending First Amendment rights for companies that are fair weather friends to the First Amendment.

I am still as angry as I ever was when I saw Stephen Pakeerah’s death used as a political tool by self-serving parasites. Now, however, I cannot wield that anger to champion the side of games. I still love videogames, and it’s an industry full of individuals I respect, but my self-righteous oratory is wasted defending interactive entertainment. It needs to be used to defend the interactively entertained. That’s you. And me, of course. Gamers. Consumers. People. Consumer advocacy has been something that truly spoke to me over the past few months of anti-SOPA protest, and I dare say we need a few more consumer advocates in gaming.

I got into the games writing field with a hope to defend videogames from selfish, greedy people. Now, it seems we need to defend people from selfish, greedy videogames.

If News reports from earlier this morning turn out to be true, opponents of the Stop Online Piracy Act may have just succeeded in getting it killed. Details are not entirely clear, however it appears that in the wake of the White House’s tepid, yet firm statement of opposition to SOPA, the House of Representatives is preparing to cancel any vote on SOPA, in effect killing it.

Though the cancellation is still not verified, and the news is based on the word of a single SOPA opponent, that the opponent happens to be California Representative Darryl Issa means we ought to take it seriously. Earlier today, it was reported (though the story first broke Friday) that Issa has received a promise from House Majority leader Eric Cantor that SOPA will be shelved “unless there is consensus on the bill.” “While I remain concerned about Senate action on the Protect IP Act,” he said, “I am confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House.”

If true, this is stunning news, but let’s not pop the champagne just yet. It’s important to note that “unless there is consensus on the bill” is incredibly vague and could conceivably mean anything. Further, Eric Cantor has yet to confirm this promise publicly — we only have Issa’s account of their conversation at this time. The Senate’s counterpart bill, PIPA, is also still in play, and as we saw with the battle over the deficit ceiling, there are apparently procedural tricks the Senate could employ to pass PIPA without having to reconcile with a House bill. However, such tricks would require the President to sign on, and since he’s signaled opposition to core components of both bills, it’s likely that if SOPA goes down, so too will PIPA.

Assuming Cantor confirms this decision, a major victory for an open Internet has been achieved. We will update this post as soon as Cantor publicly confirms his stance.

As Congress prepares to return for the first time since adjourning at the end of 2011, so too does the threat posed by the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and it’s odious Senate Counterpoint, the PROTECT IP ACT (PIPA). We dodged a bullet late last year when the House Judiciary Committee abruptly cancelled a scheduled full house floor vote on the bill, in order to consider further alleged problems with the provision that would enable the Justice Department to impose changes to existing Internet infrastructure. That discussion was then postponed until the 2012 session, giving SOPA opponents much-needed additional time to raise public awareness of the bills’ onerous limitations on Internet freedom and blatant undermining of a fair and free marketplace.

“While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response,” the statement reads, “we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” Wonderful, and better still, the statement also firmly defends the concept of an open Internet and decries SOPA provisions that would drastically change Internet infrastructural protocols:

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small… Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.

We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS)… We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.

This is certainly a much-longed-for outcome after months of dithering from the Obama administration. It’s unwise to get our hopes up just yet, however. The current administration’s penchant for failing to follow nice-sounding rhetoric with tangible action is, by this point, legendary. Furthermore, the full statement is a little less committal than these excerpts would suggest. Re-reading “any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing,” what disturbs the reader is that it lacks any specific mention of the most nefarious part of the SOPA blacklist provision.